Has natrual selection been eliminated by technology?

Question

Well i was just thinking, and is it really right to the human race to eliminate natrual selection like we are?

As in, if people are too obese to walk, or get food themselves, is it really right that we keep feeding them, and keep feeding them all the junk they're used to? On their own they wouldn't survive.

What about the elimination of predators? Nothing is no longer survival of the fittest, so if there is ever a catastrophic event, will the human race be able to survive when everything is back to the way it was supposed to be?

Answer 1

No it is not wrong to use technology to augment our lives.  What you are suggesting is or at least borders on eugenics.

Neither has technology eliminated natural selection.  It has merely altered earlier selection pressures.

Answer 2

I think a lot of our natural human selection has been decreased, especially with CAUTION signs. I think they should take away all caution signs so that all the people that don't see the imminent danger will then be damaged and forced out of the gene pool. Also with modern medicine, it has allowed a lot of contagious diseases, genetic diseases, and other things to survive to be passed to other people or passed down to children. I know it seems harsh, but when people with these problems are eliminated won't we be free from these types of diseases? Won't getting rid of people who are a bit slower that need a caution sign to know not to pee on an electric fence be vanished so they don't pass there best wit down to their child? I think with modern technology, a lot of human's least favorable subjects have been let through and passed on their negative ways which in the end the stronger must deal with through paying taxes to support them.

Answer 3

Evolution has not stopped; the selection pressures have changed.  Former top predators cannot compete with us, so they become extinct.  Dogs, cows and horses are useful to us, so they survive.  I also saw somewhere that when you look at the genetics of the human population, we are evolving faster than ever, we just can't "see" it because it is so slow compared to our lifespan.

Answer 4

It has not stopped.  New traits define fitness.  Inability to read can cause a significant disadvantage, for example.

Answer 5

I believe there is a new way of thinking about natural selection: Survival of the smartest... I'm a big guy also an Engineer student. I'm more fit to survive in a new technologically advanced society. While others, are not.

Dinosaurs were stronger then us, why are they no longer around? Survival of the fittest doesn't mean who's most athletic or who has the most strength. It means what species is more adaptable to it's environment.

Answer 6

Since this is  a biology and science related question,  will attempt answer it from life sciences perspective.

Humans are considered to be part of nature and are subjected to nature's decree;  so are their  inventions or creations, since they  are developed by humans.

Regardless of how smart and adaptable humans are as species, it is very difficult for them to adapt to very rapid environmental changes. Many microbes and insects are much more adaptable than humans, despite their smarts, intelligence and technology.

Even as scientists and engineers, humans a have long  way to go to govern the nature.

Won't  get the super natural or divine beings/ humans  involve  into this argument and question.

Answer 7

To begin with, we have not eliminated natural selection with technology.  We have slowed natural selection down, but we certainly haven't eliminated it.

It really is impossible to determined whether or not this is "right" or "wrong", though, because natural selection is not a moral issue.  It is just one of many blind evolutionary forces with no goals in mind.  Furthermore, natural selection ultimately selected for the very genes that enable us to slow down natural selection.  If this wasn't beneficial in some way, that technological capacity would've died out.

Interestingly enough, by slowing down natural selection, we are actually making it MORE likely that we will survive some sort of catastrophic event.  Because natural selection isn't rapidly weeding genes out, our genetic variation is skyrocketing.  This means that there are lots and lots of unique and novel gene combinations in the human gene pool.  This increases the likelihood that at least a few humans would survive extreme changes.

Answer 8

Who could say, but size and smarts would help.

I personally would take twice as many guns and ammo as I took food into my "ZOMG THE WORLD IS ENDING" bunker....

Answer 9

If an asteroid hit the Earth and wiped out all food sources, so that we had to start growing things again, it would be the obese people who would most likely not starve to death, the young, slim and fit would not have the body reserves to live very long. So, in this instance, the obese people are the most fit to survive.

.